Originally Posted by
MarcWPhoto
While I have enjoyed reading this thread and am grateful for your willingness to participate, that was a little bit of a waffle there.
Fair point. 49 CFR 1520 is a funny rule.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.4.8&idno=49
The point that is relevant to this discussion is that something which would normally be SSI may become fair game for open discussion if it it is widely reported or released by the proper TSA (or Coast Guard) officials. It can be difficult to give straight answers under these constraints. If I can find a better way to stay within my requirements under this rule and still give you useful information, I will.
Originally Posted by
MarcWPhoto
TSA's purpose is to ensure Transportation Security. Unless it is TSA's official position that it is somehow possible to hijack or destroy an aircraft with a wad of C-notes, said wad is not relevant to the security of transportation, and therefore not relevant to TSA. Otherwise, TSA would have to investigate ANY form of highly portable, highly concentrated wealth brought onto a plane by a pax. "Sir, where'd you get that Patek Phillipe? You weren't going to use it to bribe a pilot to fly to Cuba, were you? Could you step this way?"
IMNSHO, of course.
M
From the TSA blog: "People. The threat environment makes it clear that we need to add layers of security to be effective against adaptive terrorists. This means adding a capability to detect a potential problem even if they are not carrying anything prohibited - in other words, more focus on people, not just things. That means deploying more officers specially trained in behavior detection and document checking to identify people that intend to do harm, not just waiting to find their prohibited item in a carry-on bag."
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/03/chec...es-coming.html
It would appear TSA's stance is that people who might be linked to terrorist activity present a potential risk to the aircraft, even if they are not carrying anything prohibited at the moment. If you want to discuss the validity of that position, I'm all ears, although I'm not sure how much I will be able to contribute.
Originally Posted by
PhlyingRPh
Couple of thoughts.
First, only one of the organizations listed in the counterterrorism blog can be even vaguely considered a terrorist group. The rest are solidly fighting illegal occupations, illegal states, governments with tenuous credibility, puppet regimes, and most of them have extremely well functioning social service operations that are literally the only reliable means of subsistence for those subject to the whims of their occupiers. It should be perfectly OK for people to provide whatever support necessary to those fighting oppression (like the founding fathers).
I agree with your principles. The US is a wealthy, prosperous country that benefited from foreign support of our struggle against oppression, and our citizens should feel free to offer that support in kind, if they feel moved to do so.
Terrorism is a tactic to apply coercive force against more powerful government forces. It is potentially a very powerful tactic. If we ignore the reasons that motivate the individual terrorist, we open ourselves to, well, the mess that the US has from our mishandling of foreign policy.
I am currently reading
Dying to Win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism by Robert A. Pape. Although I have not finished it, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in examining how and why we define terrorism.
Originally Posted by
PhlyingRPh
Second, I don't think agents tasked with ensuring aviation security should be in the business of determining who might be carrying cash that might end up somewhere the u.s. government politically objects to. Again, it should be up to people to use their money as they see fit without fear of it being taken away.
This is a dodgy issue. I don't think agents tasked with enduring aviation security should be tasked with monitoring cash traffic through airports. I think that if there is a legitimate need to do this, there are probably other agencies better suited for this task.
As to how people use their money, would you also argue that people should be able to use their money to purchase child pornography, of purchase narcotics for sale? Terrorism is a subset of crime. I don't have a problem with bringing in LEOs if we have a good reason to believe that we are seeing evidence of criminal activity. I do think we need to be careful about what we define as evidence of criminal activity.
Originally Posted by
goalie
so why can't the rest of the tsa think the way you do? ^
Just 50,996 or so employees left to go. (From what I've seen,
Cee, OneOfThosePeopleYouLoveToHate, and HSVTSO Dean also seem to be among the "good employees.")
Originally Posted by
goalie
(btw, to get "d-y-w-t-f-t" to come up "not truncated", put in a "-" as "w-t-f" without them......
)
Thanks for the tip. I took the liberty of correcting it.
Originally Posted by
halls120
Someone who is carrying 10,000 cash may or may not be a terrorist. Chances are, they are legally in possession of the cash.
Someone who is carrying illegal narcotics may or may not be a terrorist, but there is NO dispute that what they are doing is illegal.
And yet federal L/E can't get TSA to adopt a consistent policy for how to handle illegal narcotics found at a screening location.
I know for a fact several instances when our resolute TSA work force has ignored the smuggling of narcotics with the exceeding lame "but it's not our job" to report it.
I don't necessarily think this is the place to discuss my opinion of the "War on Drugs," but I'd be fascinated to see what sort of responses
that discussion would provoke.
I think TSA would benefit from a
lot of consistent policies, handling of illegal but otherwise non-threatening items is just one of those which are needed. I also think that TSA needs better guidance on how to handle potentially suspicious, but legal items which are allowed on aircraft. My personal preference would be to talk to the person, explain the source of suspicion, and proceed according to the person's response and potential threat level. (Of course, I could advocate more strongly for this approach if I believed I could trust
all of my colleagues to make reasoned, rational, threat based decisions that respect civil rights and liberties.)
And an additional note, for anyone who is interested, I found a public statement about SPOT program results while I was researching for my latest set of responses. I know that it doesn't include specifics, or any
proof at all. Much of the information related to SPOT is SSI, and very carefully protected, so I was surprised to see even this much information made available to the public.
From the TSA website: "Illegal immigrants have been identified through SPOT. So was a passenger carrying surveillance photos of high-risk buildings and bridges. Another more obvious intercept was of a man wearing several layers of clothing with wires extending from his sleeves to a black box he was carrying. And, in 2005 at Logan, several passengers sitting separately were seen making clandestine signs to one another, while pretending not to know each other. They later admitted to being paid $5,000 to travel between airports and observe security."
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._bdo_spot.shtm